2013 Tap Water Report Final

7/29/2019 2013 Tap Water Report Final

1/22

www.ewg.org

1436 U Street. NW, Suite 100

Washington, DC 20009

NVIRONMENTAL

WORKING GROUP

BRUARY 2013

WATER

TREATMENT

CONTAMINANTS:

FORGOTTEN

TOXICS INAMERICAN WATER


2/22

Water Treatment Contaminants: The Toxic Trash In Drinking Water2 EWG.org

Contents

HEADQUARTERS

1436 U Street. NW, Suite 100

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 667-6982

CALIFORNIA OFFICE

2201 Broadway, Suite 308

Oakland, CA 94612

MIDWEST OFFICE

103 E. 6th Street, Suite 201

Ames, IA 50010

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

1107 9th Street, Suite 625

Sacramento, CA 95814

About EWG

The mission of the Environmental

Working Group (EWG) is to use

the power of public information

to protect public health and the

environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3)

QRQSURWRUJDQL]DWLRQIRXQGHG

in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard

Wiles.

Reprint Permission

To request reprint permission,

please email a completed request

form to permissionrequests@

ewg.org

www.ewg.org

Researchers

Renee Sharp

J. Paul Pestano

Editor

Elaine Shannon

Designers

Aman Anderson

7\


3/223Environmental Working Group

WATER TREATMENT PLANTS

ALONG THE EAST COAST ARE

STRUGGLING TO RECOVER FROM

SUPERSTORM SANDY, WHOSE TORRENTIAL

RAINS WASHED TENS OF MILLIONS OF

GALLONS OF RAW OR PARTIALLY TREATEDSEWAGE INTO WATERWAYS.

The less dramatic but equally urgent story: inside

those waterworks, and others across the nation,

chlorine, added as a disinfectant to kill disease-

causing microganisms in dirty source water, is

reacting with rotting organic matter like sewage,

manure from livestock, dead animals and fallen

leaves to form toxic chemicals that are potentially

harmful to people.

7KLVXQLQWHQGHGVLGHHHFWRIFKORULQDWLQJZDWHU

to meet federal drinking water regulations creates a

family of chemicals known as trihalomethanes. The

Environmental Protection Agency lumps them under

the euphemism disinfection byproducts but we call

them what they are: toxic trash.

The EPA regulates four members of the

trihalomethane family, the best known of which is

chloroform, once used as an anesthetic and, in pulp

detective stories, to knock out victims. Today, the86JRYHUQPHQWFODVVLHVFKORURIRUPDVDSUREDEOH

KXPDQFDUFLQRJHQ&DOLIRUQLDRFLDOVFRQVLGHU

it a known carcinogen. Three other regulated

trihalomethanes are bromodichloromethane,

bromoform, and dibromochloromethane. Hundreds

more types of toxic trash are unregulated.

Scientists suspect that trihalomethanes in drinking

water may cause thousands of cases of bladder

cancer every year. These chemicals have also been

linked to colon and rectal cancer, birth defects, low

birth weight and miscarriage (NHDES 2006).

WH EN D O ES

WATER TREATM EN T

CO NTAM INAT IO N REACH THEDANG ER PO INT?

An Environmental Working Group analysis of water

quality tests conducted in 2011 and made public last

year by 201 large American municipal water systems

in 43 states has determined that each of these

systems detected thihalomethane contamination. In

short, more than 100 million Americans served by

these large waterworks were exposed to toxic trash.

Only one of the systems studied by EWG

Davenport, Iowa exceeded the EPA rule barring

more than 80 parts per billion of trihalomethanes in

drinking water (see Appendix). This legal limit was set

in 1998, based on the potential for trihalomethanes

to cause bladder cancer. The 80-parts-per-billion

standard was part of a major Clinton administration

initiative to improve federal drinking water

protections under the federal Safe Drinking Water

Act.


4/22


In 2011 a French research team, pooling data

from studies in France, Finland and Spain, found that

men exposed to more than 50 parts per billion of

WULKDORPHWKDQHVKDGVLJQLFDQWO\LQFUHDVHGEODGGHU

cancer risks (Costet 2011).

QDVFLHQWLFWHDPLQ6SDLQDVVRFLDWHG

exposure to trihalomethanes greater than 35 partsper billion with increased bladder cancer risks

(Villanueva 2007).

In 2007, researchers from four Taiwanese

universities reported that people faced twice the odds

of dying from bladder cancer if they drank water with

trihalomethane contamination greater than 21 parts

per billion. This study was cited in the 2011 National

Report on Carcinogens, a Congressionally-mandated

report produced by the National Toxicology Program,

DIHGHUDOLQWHUDJHQF\VFLHQWLFERG\&KDQJNTP 2011).

A 2010 study by the National Cancer Institute

found that about a quarter of the human population

may have a genetic susceptibility that raises its risk of

bladder cancer from trihalomethanes (Cantor 2010).

Some 168 of the systems studied by EWG, or 84

percent, reported average annual trihalomethane

contamination greater than 21 parts per billion the

level at which Taiwanese researchers detected a

heightened risk of bladder cancer. Concentrations

greater than 35 parts per billion were found in

107, or 53 percent of these systems. In 2005,

the EPA considered lowering the legal limit for

trihalomethanes to 40 parts per billion, calculating

that this move would prevent nearly 1,300 bladder

cancer cases each year and save the U.S. between

$2.9 and $7.1 billion (EPA 2005). The agency did

not attempt to establish this lower standard as a

regulation with the force of law. Instead it made

marginal improvements in the way it would measuretrihalomethanes for compliance with existing

regulations and gave water treatment facilities until

2016 to comply with these modest changes.

CO NTAM INAT IO N SP IKES

PRESEN T SPECIAL R ISKS

DU R ING PREG NANCYEWGs analysis suggests that many people

are likely exposed to far higher concentrations of

trihalomethanes than anyone knows. The EPAregulation for these toxic chemicals is based on the

system-wide annual average. But in most water

V\VWHPVWULKDORPHWKDQHFRQWDPLQDWLRQXFWXDWHV

from month to month, sometimes rising well beyond

the 80 parts-per-billion federal cap. Contamination

VSLNHVDUHRVHWE\ORZUHDGLQJVWKDWNHHSWKH

systems in legal compliance.

The EPA standard for trihalomethanes is based on

preventing bladder cancer, but the agency has noted

that these chemicals may present reproductive anddevelopmental risks as well (EPA 2012a). A spike that

lasts three months exposes a pregnant woman and

her fetus to excessive trihalomethane for an entire

WULPHVWHUDFULWLFDOZLQGRZRIGHYHORSPHQW6FLHQWLF

research has shown that such intensive exposure

can have serious consequences for the child. Three

studies published last year:

Australian scientists found that when women

in their third trimester of pregnancy consumed

water with 25 parts per billion of chloroform, theirnewborns were small for their gestational age,

meaning that they typically had birth weights in the

lowest ten percent of newborns and were at higher

risk for a various health problems (Summerhayes

2012).

Canadian researchers found that exposure to

more than 100 parts per billion of trihalomethanes

during the last trimester of pregnancy was associated

with newborns small for their gestational age

(Levallois 2012).

Taiwanese researchers linked stillbirth risks to

trihalomethane levels as low as 20 parts per billion

(Hwang 2012).

Numerous other studies have associated

reproductive and developmental problems with

trihalomethanes. Among them:

In 2008, scientists from the University of North



80 ppb or highermiscarriage, low birth weight

babies, small for gestationalage babies, birth defects,

bladder cancer, stillbirth

40 ppb or higherbirth defects, bladder cancer,

stillbirth

21 ppb or higherbladder cancer, stillbirth

0.8 ppb or higherDraft California public health

goal for trihalomethanes

60 ppb or highersmall for gestational age

babies, birth defects, bladder

cancer, stillbirth

168

200

84

21

1

WATER

CO NTAM INATIO N

BY THENU M BERS

NUMBER OF UTILITIES(OUT OF 201)

Water quality tests conducted in 2011 by 201

ODUJHZDWHUbVXSSOLHUVLQVWDWHVVKRZWKDW

of them reported trihalomethane concentrations

greater than 21 parts per billion level. Two

Taiwanese studies have found that at this level,

FDQFHUULVNGRXEOHVDQGWKHbFKDQFHVRIVWLOOELUWKULVH$OOEXWRQHRIWKHbXWLOLWLHVUHYLHZHGE\

EWG reported trihalomethane levels greater

WKDQbSDUWVSHUELOOLRQWKHJRDOUHFRPPHQGHG

E\&DOLIRUQLDSXEOLFKHDOWKRFLDOVb

Shown at right are the health risks associated with

each concentration of trihalomethanes.

5HIHUHQFHV%RYH&KDQJ+RPDQ+ZDQJ:ULJKW


6/22


Carolina found that women exposed to more than

80 parts per billion of trihalomethanes during their

third trimester of pregnancy faced twice the risk of

GHOLYHULQJDFKLOGVPDOOIRUJHVWDWLRQDODJH+RPDQ

2008).

British scientists found a link between 60 parts

per billion of trihalomethane exposure and stillbirths

(Toledano 2005).

In 2003, a team from the Harvard School of Public

Health linked exposures to more than 80 parts

per billion of trihalomethanes during the second

trimester of pregnancy to low birth weight and small-

for-gestational-age newborns (Wright 2003).

In 2002 researchers at the federal Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reviewed the

QGLQJVRIPDMRUVWXGLHVDQGFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHUH

was moderate evidence for an association betweentrihalomethane exposure, small-for-gestational-age

newborns, neural tube defects and miscarriage (Bove

2002). The neural tube is the structure in the fetus

that develops into the brain and spinal cord.

TRIH ALO M ETH AN ES ARE JU ST

TH E TIP O F TH E ICEBERGStudies have shown that there are more than

600 unwanted chemicals created by the interactionof water treatment disinfectants and pollutants

in source water (Barlow 2004, Richardson 1998,

1999a, 1999b, 2003). Most of these water treatment

contaminants have not been studied in depth. Among

them: haloacetonitriles, haloaldehydes, haloketones,

halohydroxyfuranones, haloquinones, aldehydes,

haloacetamides, halonitriles, halonitromethanes,

nitrosamines, organic N-chloramines, iodoacids,

ketones and carboxylic acids (Bond 2011, Bull 2011,

EWG 2001, Plewa 2004, Yang 2012). Some of thesecompounds are suspected carcinogens (Bull 2011).

Notably, scientists believe that hundreds more water

treatment contaminants are present in drinking water

EXWKDYHQRW\HWEHHQLGHQWLHG%DUORZ

Besides the four regulated trihalomethanes,

WKH(3$UHJXODWHVYHRWKHUFRQWDPLQDQWVLQD

family of chemicals known as haloacetic acids

-- monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid,

trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid and

dibromoacetic acid (EPA 2012b). The current EPA

OHJDOOLPLWIRUWKHVHYHFKHPLFDOVLVSDUWVSHU

billion.

While there have been relatively few

HSLGHPLRORJLFDOVWXGLHVRQWKHSRWHQWLDOKHDOWKHHFW

of haloacetic acids, there is evidence suggesting

that exposure to these chemicals during the second

and third trimesters of pregnancy may be linked to

intrauterine growth retardation and low birth weight

(Levallois 2012, Hinckley 2005; Porter 2005).

+DORDFHWLFDFLGVKDYHEHHQFODVVLHGE\WKH(3$DV

possibly carcinogenic to humans because of evidence

of carcinogenicity in animals. According to the EPA,

long-term consumption of water that contains

haloacetic acid concentrations in excess the legal limit

of 60 parts per billion is associated with an increased

risk of cancer (EPA 2002). A technical bulletin released

by the Oregon Department of Human Services in

2004 warned that long-term exposure to haloacetic

acids at or above 60 parts per billion may cause

injury to the brain, nerves, liver, kidneys, eyes and

reproductive systems.

6RPHVWXGLHVSRLQWWRFRQFHUQVZLWKVSHFLF

haloacetic acids. Dibromoacetic acid has been shown

to disturb the balance of the intestinal tract and to

cause disease, especially in people with weakened

immune systems (Rusin 1997). This particular

haloacetic acid compound is toxic to the sperm

of adult rats at concentrations as low as 10 parts

per billion. At high doses, it has caused a range of

neurological problems in test animals, including

awkward gait, tremors and immovable hind limbs

(Linder 1995). Two members of the haloacetic acid

family -- dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid

-- have been shown to cause severe skin and eye

irritations in humans (NTP 2005).



A CH LO RINE SU BSTITUTE

TH AT D O ESN T SO LVE TH E

PRO BLEM AND M AY M AKE

IT WO RSEIn recent years, many water utilities have tried to

reduce contamination caused by water treatment

by switching from free chlorine to chloramines,

compounds made from chlorine and ammonia gases.

Chloramines are more stable than chlorine and do

not produce as many trihalomethanes and haloacetic

acids. The EPA has reported that when Washington

Aqueduct, a U.S. Corps of Engineers facility that treats

drinking water for Washington D.C., switched to

chloramines, the estimated average of the regulated

water treatment contaminants in these two families

dropped by 47 percent (EPA 2006).

Yet switching to chloramines has not solved theproblem but rather moved the problem and may

have complicated it.

Chloramines are toxic to kidney dialysis patients

DQGH[WUHPHO\WR[LFWRVK(3$E

A nationwide study on water treatment

contaminants conducted by the EPA reported that

chloraminated drinking water had the highest

levels of an unregulated chemical family known as

iodoacids (EPA 2002). Some researchers consider

iodoacids to be potentially the most toxic group of

water treatment contaminants found to date, but

there is still relatively little research on them (Barlow

2004, Plewa 2004).

Other dangerous compounds formed by

chloramine are nitrosamines. In 2010, then-EPA

Administrator Lisa Jackson launched a new drinkingwater strategy.During these deliberations,

the agency is addressing, among other things,

nitrosamine contamination. Nitrosamines, which are

currently unregulated, form when water is disinfected

with chloramine. The U.S. government says some

chemicals in the nitrosamine family are reasonably

anticipated to be human carcinogens.

In a 2011 report called The Chlorine Dilemma,

David Sedlak, a professor of civil and environmental

engineering at the University of California, Berkeley,detailed the dark side of water treatment and

WKHQHZDQGXQDQWLFLSDWHGKD]DUGVRIZDWHU

treatment plants shift from chlorine to chloramine.

Nitrosamines are the compounds that people

warned you about when they told you you shouldnt

be eating those nitrite-cured hot dogs, Sedlak

told National Public Radio in 2011. Theyre about

Chemical fertilizer and

PDQXUHUXQR

Algal blooms

Cyanotoxins

Water

treatment

contaminants

Need for

expensive water

treatment

U npleasant taste

and smell of tap

water

Phosphorus Nitrate

D irect health

HHFWV

WATER PO LLU TIO N CASCADE FRO M AG RICULTURAL RU NO FF


8/22


a thousand times more carcinogenic than the

disinfection byproducts that wed been worried about

with regular old chlorine.

The bottom line is that switching to chloramination

PD\KDYHDFKLHYHGWKHGHVLUHGHHFWRIUHGXFLQJ

trihalomethane and haloacetic acid levels, but it

may have inadvertently exposed the population to

additional unregulated byproducts that are more

harmful in the long run.

Chloramines present other potential problems.

8WLOLWLHVREVHUYHGWKDWFKORUDPLQHVZHUHQRWDVHHFWLYH

at disinfection as free chlorine, so, according to the EPA,

many treatment plants began to alternate between

FKORUDPLQHVDQGFKORULQHWRGLVORGJHELROPVDQG

sediment in water mains (EPA 2007). When chlorine

was reintroduced to a system for a month-long

FKORULQHXVK(:*WKHUHVXOWZDVFKORULQH

burn, which removed sludge and sediment from

pipes but also temporarily raised the level of chlorine-

generated contaminants. Customers of utilities that

used both types of chemicals were exposed to varying

amounts of multiple water treatment contaminants.

There were more severe and long-lasting

complications. In 2000, the Washington Aqueduct

VZLWFKHGWRFKORUDPLQHZLWKRXWUHDOL]LQJWKDWFKORULQH

prevented corrosion of old lead pipes but chloramine

did not (Brown 2010). The switch caused D.C.s old

lead pipes to discharge quantities of lead into the citys

drinking water, triggering a public health crisis when the

problem was detected in 2004. The belated discovery of

high lead levels triggered warnings, broad distribution

RIZDWHUOWHUVULQJV&RQJUHVVLRQDOKHDULQJVDQG

extensive replacement of lead water lines.

In a study published in January 2009 in the Journal of

Environmental Science and Technology, scientists Marc

Edwards and Simoni Triantafyllidou of Virginia Tech and

Dana Best of the Childrens National Medical Centerin Washington wrote that during the D.C. lead crisis,

the number of babies and toddlers with elevated lead

levels in their blood increased by more than four times,

compared to the pre-2001 period (Edwards 2009). The

DXWKRUVZDUQHGWKDWPDQ\RIWKH\RXQJHVWFRXOGVXHU

LUUHYHUVLEOH4ORVVRURWKHUGHYHORSPHQWDOGLFXOWLHV

CLEANING U P SO U RCE

WATERCleaner source water is critical to breaking this

cycle. By failing to protect source water, Congress,

EPA and polluters leave Americans with no choice

but to treat it with chemical disinfectants and then

consume the residual chemicals generated by thetreatment process.

For most utilities with chronically high readings

of treatment pollutants, cleaning up source water

will require aggressive action to reduce agricultural

SROOXWLRQUXQRIURPVXEXUEDQVSUDZODQGXSVWUHDP

sewage discharges.

Superstorm Sandy exerted unprecedented

pressure on sources of drinking water along the East

Coast. In the storms wake, tens of millions of gallons

of sewage washed into waterways and the Chesapeake

Bay. The Federal Emergency Management Agency

advised people in areas slammed by the storm to boil

tap water. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo estimated

that the costs of repairing damaged sewage pumping

stations and treatment plants in his state alone could

surpass $1.1 billion. The fragile Chesapeake, already

the site of a long-running environmental cleanup, was

deluged with sewage from water treatment systems

swamped by pounding rains. In Virginia, most of the

ORZHU&KHVDSHDNH%D\VXHUHGZLGHVSUHDGVHZDJH

FRQWDPLQDWLRQDQGZDVFORVHGWRVKHOOVKLQJIRUD

period.

These are serious issues that must be addressed.

The smart choice will be to make infrastructure

improvements that help protect source water. It

doesnt take a perfect storm for sewage to pollute

the Potomac River. The Washington D.C. areas aging

sewage pipes do that regularly. To remedy the

problem, Washington authorities have embarked on

a complex, long-term sewage control plan called the

Clean Rivers project, estimated to cost $2.6 billion and

wind up in 2025.

Other urban areas are long overdue for upgrades

to their sewage and storm water management

systems. In 2009, the American Society of Civil

Engineers gave the nation a D-minus for inattention



Recommendations for consumers

to its wastewater systems. Clean and safe water is

no less a national priority than are national defense,

an adequate system of interstate highways, and a

VDIHDQGHFLHQWDYLDWLRQV\VWHPWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ

said. Many other highly important infrastructure

programs enjoy sustainable, long-term sources of

federal backing, often through the use of dedicated

trust funds; under current policy, water and

wastewater infrastructure do not.

Treating fouled water with chemicals can be more

expensive than reducing pollution before it gets

to the treatment plant. Research has shown that

WKHORQJWHUPHFRQRPLFEHQHWVRINHHSLQJVRXUFH

water clean often far outweigh the costs. The EPA has

found that every dollar spent to protect source water

reduced water treatment costs by an average of $27

&%)3KLODGHOSKLDRFLDOVKDYHHVWLPDWHG

that every dollar they invest in green infrastructure

WRUHGXFHVWRUPZDWHURZVZLOOFUHDWHPRUHWKDQ

GRXEOHWKHHFRQRPLFEHQHWV3:'

In much of the country, farming is a major

source of organic pollution in drinking water anda contributor to water treatment contamination.

Farming communities need common sense

VWDQGDUGVWRUHGXFHVRLOHURVLRQDQGSROOXWHGUXQR

from agricultural operations. Farm operators and

landowners should be expected to implement a

basic standard of care involving simple and often

conventional practices that improve soil and water

quality. These should be a condition of eligibility for

Anyone drinking tap water should use some

IRUPRIFDUERQOWUDWLRQGHVLJQHGWRUHGXFH

exposures to trihalomethanes, haloacetic

acids and other water treatment contaminants.

&DUERQOWUDWLRQV\VWHPVFRPHLQYDULRXVIRUPV

including pitchers, faucet-mounted attachments and

larger systems installed on or under countertops.

3ULFHVYDU\7KH\PD\EHGHFHLYLQJEHFDXVHGLHUHQW

V\VWHPVUHTXLUHOWHUUHSODFHPHQWSHULRGLFDOO\

EWG research shows that pitcher and faucet-

mounted systems are typically the most economical,

costing about $100 a year. Countertop and under-

counter systems are more expensive to install, with

yearly maintenance costs roughly equal to pitcher and

faucet-mounted systems.

The prices for all of these systems pale in

comparison to the expense of purchasing bottledwater for a family of four, which EWG estimates to

range between $950 and $1,800 a year.

%HIRUHSXUFKDVLQJDQ\OWUDWLRQV\VWHPLWLV

important to research them. Not all activated carbon

systems remove water treatment contaminants.

Click hereWRVHHDOLVWRIVRPHOWHUVWKDWUHGXFH

the concentrations of at least one of these chemical

families. (http://www.ewg.org/report/ewgs-water-

OWHUEX\LQJJXLGH

Consumers who are serious about avoiding

water treatment contaminants should consider

LQVWDOOLQJDZKROHKRXVHOWUDWLRQV\VWHP1XPHURXV

studies have shown that showering and bathing are

important routes of exposure for trihalomethanes

and may actually contribute more to total exposurethan drinking water (OEHHA 2004, Xu and Weisel

2003).

It is critical, however, that consumers research

their choices carefully. Many whole-house systems

do not remove water treatment contaminants. In

fact, when EWG was assembling the latest edition of

its OWHUJXLGHZHFRXOGQRWQGDVLQJOHZKROHKRXVH

V\VWHPWKDWZDVFHUWLHGE\WKHVWDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD

RU16)QWHUQDWLRQDODQLQGHSHQGHQWQRQSURW

FHUWLFDWLRQERG\WRUHGXFHWULKDORPHWKDQHV7KRVH

that do may cost several hundred or even thousands

of dollars and incur yearly maintenance costs of

hundreds of dollars more.

Whichever system you choose, remember to

FKDQJHWKHOWHUDFFRUGLQJWRWKHPDQXIDFWXUHUV

guidelines, or it will become clogged and cease to

IXQFWLRQHHFWLYHO\(http://www.ewg.org/report/

ZDWHUOWHUPDLQWHQDQFH


10/22


UHFHLYLQJWKHJHQHURXVIHGHUDOEHQHWVDFFRUGHG

agricultural operations. States should take action

to enact narrowly-targeted standards that restrict

IDUPLQJSUDFWLFHVWKDWLQLFWDGLVSURSRUWLRQDOO\ODUJH

amount of natural resource damage.

About 1 billion tons of topsoil erode from

American cropland each year, much of it deposited in

streams and rivers. Soil mixed with manure washed

from pasture and rangelands contains even more

fecal matter and other organic substances (USDA

2001, EWG 2012a).

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey have found

WKDWIHUWLOL]HUXVHGLQDJULFXOWXUHDFFRXQWHGIRU

17 percent of total phosphorus in major U.S. river

EDVLQV&630RVWSKRVSKRUXVIURPIHUWLOL]HULV

DEVRUEHGLQWRVRLOLQHOGVDQGLVFDUULHGWRVWUHDPV

and rivers during soil erosion. USGS studies show

that three-quarters of all American streams and rivers

are polluted with enough phosphorus to support

uncontrolled algae growth (USGS 1999, Cooke 1989).

In bodies of water, algae blooms die, decompose and,

like other organic matter, JLYHRIXOYLFDQGKXPLF

acids that react with chlorine during treatment to

form trihalomethanes.

With the exception of large animal feeding

operations, farm businesses are exempt from the

pollution control requirements of the federal Clean

Water Act. Few states have authority to compel farms

to adopt practices that would reduce agricultural

pollution reaching rivers, lakes and bays.

For example, according to the Iowa Department of

Natural Resources, 92 percent of the nitrogen and 80

percent of the phosphorus the two pollutants most

responsible for the poor condition of the waterways

WKDWLWPRQLWRUVFRPHPDLQO\IURPDJULFXOWXUDOUXQR

Only 8 percent of the nitrogen and 20 percent of the

phosphorus come from municipal and industrialdischarges. Yet Iowas water quality regulation almost

exclusively targets municipal and industrial discharges.

$JULFXOWXUDOUXQRUHPDLQVODUJHO\XQUHJXODWHG(:*

2012b).

7KHIHGHUDOIDUPELOOUHDXWKRUL]HGHYHU\YH\HDUV

sets national policy for source water protection. The

current debate over renewing the farm bill can be

viewed as a referendum on the nations commitment

to protect drinking water supplies at the source.

7KLVOHJLVODWLRQDHFWVWKHQDWLRQVZDWHUVLQWZR

RSSRVLQJZD\V2QRQHKDQGLWDXWKRUL]HVVXEVLGLHV

that encourage all-out production of feed grains and

oilseeds, spurring increased pollution and habitat

GHVWUXFWLRQ2QWKHRWKHULWRHUVLQFHQWLYHVWRIDUPHUV

who protect the environment.

In exchange for federal subsidies, farmers since 1985

have agreed to adopt soil conservation measures to

PLQLPL]HHURVLRQDQGSURWHFWZHWODQGV$VDUHVXOW

of this conservation compact between farmers and

taxpayers, soil erosion on highly erodible land was

reduced by 40 percent in recent decades. The nation

met the long-sought goal of no net loss of wetlands.

Now, however, some lobbyists and legislators want

to end this compact, opposing proposals to restore

the link between conservation compliance and crop

insurance subsidies, which are the governments

chief form of income support for farm businesses. To

QDQFHWKRVHVXEVLGLHVPDQ\RIWKHVDPHOREE\LVWV

and legislators have proposed cutting programs

managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to

help farmers pay for conservation measures. These

cuts would reverse a gradual trend in recent decades

that has seen annual spending on conservation

increase from $2 billion to more than $4 billion, with

greater incentives for farmers who take steps to

reduce water pollution (EWG 2012a).

If conservation funding is slashed, the U.S. will give

up important gains that have constrained agricultural

pollution. The problem of water treatment

contaminants is likely to become more pronounced.

TH E TRO U BLE WITH EPAThe EPAs rules for water treatment contaminants

date back to 1974, when scientists discovered that

chlorine was reacting with dissolved pollution in the

water supply to create more contaminants. Five

\HDUVODWHUWKH(3$VHWWKHQDWLRQVUVWVWDQGDUGVIRU

trihalomethanes at 100 parts per billion, calculated as

the running annual average of total concentration of

the chemicals.

In 1998, the Clinton EPA lowered the

trihalomethane cap to a running annual average



of 80 parts per billion and set a new legal limit for

haloacetic acids at a running annual average of 60

parts per billion.

But the agencys regulatory scheme succeeded in

conveying a false sense of security to the public.

As noted earlier, the EPA regulates just nine

pollutants generated by chlorine or chloramine--IRXUWULKDORPHWKDQHVDQGYHKDORDFHWLFDFLGV(3$

2012a). These nine regulated chemicals represent

less than 2 percent of the more than 600 unwanted

chemicals created by the interaction of water

treatment disinfectants and pollutants in source

water (Barlow 2004).

The legal limits for the nine regulated chemicals

are not what either the agency or many independent

scientists believe is truly safe. Rather, the regulations

represent political compromises that take intoaccount the costs and feasibility of treatment.

Q&DOLIRUQLDV2FHRI(QYLURQPHQWDO

+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQWSURSRVHGDSXEOLFKHDOWK

goal for trihalomethanes of 0.8 parts per billion. A

goal is not a binding legal limit, but setting a goal

LVWKHUVWVWHSLQWKHSURFHVVWKDWHVWDEOLVKHVVXFK

a limit. California regulators estimated that if the

goal of 0.8 parts per billion were attained, bladder

cancer risks would be reduced to no more than 1

in a million (OEHHA 2010). The state is still in theSURFHVVRISXEOLVKLQJLWVQDOJRDO6WLOOWKH

proposal represents what Californias public health

and environmental experts believe should be done to

protect the public from carcinogenic trihalomethanes.

WLVVLJQLFDQWWKDWWKLVSURSRVHGJRDOLVRQH

hundredth of the EPA cap.

Yet another problem is of the EPAs own making.

The agency established an unusual monitoring

method that all but guaranteed that many Americans

would be overexposed periodically to spikes in water

treatment contamination. For most toxic chemicals

in drinking water, the agency set a simple limit on

the maximum level of the contaminant that could

be measured at any time. But for water treatment

contaminants, the agency permitted utilities to

average the pollution throughout their systems

and over the previous four quarters. This method

made it legal for utilities to distribute excessively

contaminated water from chronically problematic

sections and use readings from other sections that

were below average to remain in compliance with

federal law and regulations.

7KLVDZLVQRWWKHRUHWLFDO(:*VDQDO\VLVRI

utilities water quality reports for 2012, known as

FRQVXPHUFRQGHQFHUHSRUWVXQFRYHUHGVHYHUDO

utilities in which annual trihalomethane and/or

haloaceticacid levels for some sampling locations

spiked to between 2 and 8 times higher than other

sampling locations within the same systems. The

entire systems escaped penalties because their water

averaged out with a passing grade from EPA. But

at certain times and in certain places, the water was

excessively tainted, sometimes severely so. Pregnant

ZRPHQDQGWKHLUXQERUQFKLOGUHQFRXOGEHDHFWHG

by these spikes.

In 2005, responding to critics of this complicated

DQGDZHGPHWKRGWKH(3$SURSRVHGQHZUXOHVWR

JRLQWRHHFWEHWZHHQDQGGHSHQGLQJRQ

WKHVL]HRIWKHZDWHUV\VWHP7KHVHZRXOGUHTXLUH

ZDWHUXWLOLWLHVWRQGVSRWVZLWKLQWKHLUV\VWHPVWKDW

had markedly high concentrations of water treatment

contaminants and designate these locations as

monitoring sites for compliance with federal drinking

water standards. The EPA asserted that these new

rules would prevent an estimated 280 cases of

bladder cancer each year.

But EPAs plan represented only a partial solution.

It retained the system-wide averaging method

and would not solve the problem of recurrent

contaminant spikes at particular locations.

To examine this issue further. EWG created a

FDVHVWXG\DQDO\]LQJGHWDLOHGZDWHUWUHDWPHQW

contaminant data for all 936 water utilities in Florida.

We found that fully nine percent of all the testsexceeded the EPA maximum for trihalomethanes.

The most contaminated water measured an

astonishing 595 parts per billion. In four percent

of the tests, haloacetic acids exceeded the EPA

maximum, with some levels as high as 260 parts per

billion. Spikes typically appeared in early spring and

late summer.


12/22


PO LICY RECO M M ENDAT IO NSIVRXUFHZDWHUZHUHOHVVSROOXWHGDVLWRZHG

into a water utilitys intake pipes, less disinfection

with chlorine and chloramines would be needed,

and these treatment chemicals would produce less

contamination. But government policies do little to

advance this goal.Instead, taxpayers pour billions of dollars into

federal programs like farm subsidy payments that

exacerbate pollution and then pile on additional

billions of dollars for water treatment facilities. Not

HQRXJKIHGHUDOPRQH\DQGHRUWDUHEHLQJGHYRWHG

WRQGLQJPRUHHHFWLYHDQGHFLHQWPHDVXUHVWR

SURWHFWULYHUVDQGVWUHDPVIURPSROOXWLRQLQWKHUVW

place.

Until such measures are in place and contaminant

levels are dramatically reduced, EWG makes theserecommendations for national policy:

The EPA should reevaluate its legal limits for

water treatment contaminants in light of the

ODWHVWVFLHQWLFUHVHDUFKLQGLFDWLQJWKDWORZHU

OLPLWVDUHZHOOMXVWLHGWRSURWHFWKXPDQ

health.

Congress should reform farm policies to

provide more funds to programs designed to

keep agricultural pollutants such as manure,

IHUWLOL]HUSHVWLFLGHVDQGVRLORXWRIWDSZDWHU

Congress should renew the conservation

compliance provisions of the 1985 farm bill by

tying wetland and soil protection requirements

to crop insurance programs, by requiring farm

businesses that receive subsidies to update

their conservation plans and by strengthening

the governments enforcement tools.

Congress should strengthen and adequately

fund conservation programs that rewardfarmers who take steps to protect sources

of drinking water. Congress should expand

collaborative conservation tools that award

funds to groups of farmers who work together

to protect drinking water sources.

The USDA and other federal agencies involved

in federal agriculture policy should place

JUHDWHUHPSKDVLVRQUHVWRULQJEXHUVDQG

ZHWODQGVWKDWOWHUUXQRFRQWDPLQDWHGZLWK

farm pollutants.

The federal government should fund more

research on the identity of and toxicological

SUROHVIRUWKHKXQGUHGVRIZDWHUWUHDWPHQW

contaminants in drinking water.

The EPA must reevaluate the way it measures

water treatment contaminants so that

consumers cannot be legally exposed to spikes

of toxic chemicals.

&RQJUHVVPXVWDOORFDWHVLJQLFDQWPRQH\WR

help repair and upgrade the nations water

infrastructure.

Source water protection programs should be

VLJQLFDQWO\H[SDQGHGLQFOXGLQJHRUWVWR

prevent or reduce pollution of source watersDQGWRFRQVHUYHODQGLQEXHU]RQHVDURXQG

public water supplies. Financial support for

these projects is crucial.



State Water Supplier Locations Served (in whole or part)

TotalTrihalomethaneRunning AnnualAverage (in parts

per billion)

Haloacetic AcidsRunning Annual

Average (in parts perbillion)

AKAnchorage Water & WastewaterUtility

Anchorage 4.9 5.0

ALHuntsville Utilities WaterDepartment

Huntsville 34.4 23.9

ALMontgomery Water Works &Sanitary Sewer Board

Montgomery 22.0 15.0

AR Beaver Water DistrictFayetteville, Springdale, Rogers,and Bentonville

63.6 37.3

AR Central Arkansas Water Little Rock 53.0 25.0

AZCity of Chandler MunicipalUtilities Department

Chandler 46.2 16.6

AZ City of Glendale Water Services Glendale 50.0 14.7

AZCity of Mesa Water ResourcesDepartment

Mesa 59.1 17.7

AZCity of Phoenix Water ServicesDepartment

Phoenix 58.0 22.0

AZ City of Scottsdale WaterResources

Scottsdale 54.0 17.5

AZCity of Tempe Water UtilitiesDivision

Tempe 62.0 24.0

AZ Town of Gilbert Public Works Gilbert 43.9 16.1

CA Alameda County Water District Fremont, Newark, and Union City 26.0 17.0

CA Anaheim Public Utilities Anaheim 33.0 14.0

CA $]XVD/LJKWDQG:DWHU $]XVD 23.6 16.8

CACalifornia Water Service&RPSDQ\%DNHUVHOG

%DNHUVHOG 41.0 39.0

CA Castaic Lake Water Agency Santa Clarita, Canyon Country andNewhall

25.6 8.0

CA Chino Hills Water and Sewer Chino Hills 32.5 3.6

CA City of Antioch Antioch 47.7 5.4

CA City of Fresno Water Division Fresno 0.8 2.5

CA City of Glendale Water and Power Glendale 38.4 11.0

CA City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach 31.0 18.0

CA City of Modesto Modesto 28.7 18.8

APPENDIX

WATER TREATM EN T CO N TAM INAN TS IN 201 LARG EWATER U TILITIESRunning annual average levels of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids for the year 2011 as

UHSRUWHGLQWKH&RQVXPHU&RQGHQFH5HSRUWVRIODUJH86ZDWHUXWLOLWLHV


14/22


CA City of Oceanside Oceanside 37.0 11.0

CA City of Orange Orange 24.0 13.0

CA City of Riverside Public Utilities Riverside 4.1 not listed

CACity of Sacramento Departmentof Utilities

Sacramento 44.0 23.0

CA City of Santa Ana Public Works Santa Ana 52.0 23.0

CACity of Torrance Water

DepartmentTorrance 41.2 13.9

CA Contra Costa Water District Contra Costa County 47.7 5.4

CA Cucamonga Valley Water DistrictRancho Cucamonga, Upland,Ontario, and Fontana

46.0 18.0

CA East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictAlameda and Contra CostaCounties

44.0 25.0

CAEast Orange County Water'LVWULFW:]

Orange 48.0 29.0

CA Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County 59.0 24.0

CA Helix Water District San Diego County 48.1 11.8

CA Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine 39.0 25.0

CAJoint Regional Water SupplySystem

Orange County 48.0 16.0

CALos Angeles Department of Waterand Power

Los Angeles 45.0 28.0

CA Marin Municipal Water District Marin County 28.0 16.0

CAMetropolitan Water District ofSouthern California

Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,Riverside, San Bernardino, andVentura counties

43.0 18.0

CA San Diego Water Department San Diego 63.8 15.1

CASan Francisco Public UtilitiesCommission

San Francisco, San Mateo,Alameda and Santa Clara counties 42.0 34.0

CA San Jose Water Company San Jose 32.7 15.7

CA Ventura Water Department Ventura 30.0 25.0

CO Aurora Water Aurora 14.2 16.4

CO City of Fort Collins Utilities Fort Collins 32.1 19.0

CO Colorado Springs Utilities Colorado Springs 38.0 45.0

CO Denver Water Denver 29.0 18.0

CT Aquarion Water Company Bridgeport 38.0 33.0

CT Metropolitan District Commission Hartford 68.7 28.4

CTSouth Central ConnecticutRegional Water Authority

New Haven 29.0 22.0

CT Waterbury Bureau of Water Waterbury 45.0 43.0

DC D.C. Water and Sewer Authority Washington, D.C. 41.0 27.0

DE Artesian Water Company Newark 16.6 13.4

FL Charlotte County UtilitiesCharlotte, DeSoto, and Sarasotacounties and the city of North Port

33.9 27.6

FLCity of Cocoa Claude H. DyalWater Treatment Plant

Cocoa 38.3 40.3



FLCity of Hialeah - Department ofWater and Sewers

Hialeah 30.0 28.0

FLCity of Lakeland, Department ofWater Utilities

Lakeland 36.7 17.0

FLCity of North Miami Beach PublicServices Department

North Miami Beach 13.8 6.9

FLCity of Port St Lucie UtilitySystems Department

Port St Lucie 26.4 14.4

FL Collier County Water Department Naples 35.0 14.2

FL Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Pensacola 3.8 1.3

FLHillsborough County WaterResource Services-SouthHillsborough

Lithia 24.0 7.7

FL JEA Jacksonville 37.9 16.8

FL Lee County Utilities Fort Myers 8.7 9.0

FLManatee County UtilitiesDepartment

Bradenton 40.7 30.6

FL

Melbourne Public Works &

Utilities Department Melbourne 44.6 11.8

FLMiami-Dade Water and SewerDepartment

Miami 30.0 28.0

FLOrange County UtilitiesDeparment

Orange County 61.8 36.3

FL Orlando Utilities Commission Orlando 49.0 18.0

FL Palm Bay Utilities Palm Bay 22.8 7.1

FLPalm Beach County WaterUtilities Department

Palm Beach County 27.7 22.3

FLPasco County Utilities-Pasco

County Regional Water System

Pasco County 17.7 9.4

FL Pinellas County Utilities Clearwater 36.5 21.4

FL Tampa Water Department Tampa 35.1 10.8

GAAtlanta Department of WatershedManagement

Atlanta 44.0 40.0

GACherokee County Water andSewerage Authority

Cherokee County 55.9 53.7

GA Clayton County Water Authority Clayton County 48.4 23.9

GA Cobb County Water SystemCobb County and the cities ofAcworth and Kennesaw

37.0 21.0

GA Columbus Water Works Columbus 30.3 18.5

GADekalb County WatershedManagement

DeKalb County 22.0 7.0

GADouglasville-Douglas CountyWater and Sewer Authority

Douglasville 52.4 31.0

GAGwinnett County Department ofWater Resources

Buford 18.6 12.0

IA Cedar Rapids Water Department Cedar Rapids 1.4 0.4

IA Des Moines Water Works Des Moines 36.0 7.0


16/22


IAIowa American Water Company-Davenport

Davenport 92.0 27.0

ID United Water Idaho Inc Boise 17.6 13.0

ILChicago Department of WaterManagement

Chicago 19.6 10.5

IL IL-American Water East St Louis East St Louis 18.5 22.1

IL IL-American Water Peoria Peoria 32.5 11.5

IN &LWL]HQV:DWHU Indianapolis 46.0 42.0

INEvansville Water and SewerUtilities

Evansville 37.0 22.7

INFort Wayne City Utilities-ThreeRivers Filtration Plant

Fort Wayne 47.1 45.1

INIndiana American Water-Northwest

Gary 25.5 13.5

KSWater District 1 of JohnsonCounty

Johnson County 24.0 22.0

KS Wichita Water Utilities Wichita 25.0 11.0

KYKentucky-American Water Lexington 47.0 31.0

KY Louisville Water Company Louisville 26.6 16.7

KY Northern Kentucky Water District Fort Thomas 72.0 58.0

LA -HHUVRQ3DULVK -HHUVRQ3DULVK 62.0 33.0

LASewerage and Water Board ofNew Orleans

New Orleans 36.0 21.0

LAShreveport Department of Waterand Sewerage

Shreveport 23.4 18.5

MA Lowell Regional Water Utility Lowell 49.2 14.9

MAMassachusetts Water ResourcesAuthority

Boston 8.7 8.7

MA6SULQJHOG:DWHUDQG6HZHUCommission

6SULQJHOG 63.0 33.0

MAWorcester DPW, Water SupplyDivision

Worcester 48.0 46.0

MDBaltimore City Department ofPublic Works

Baltimore 52.0 54.0

MDWashington Suburban SanitaryCommission

Potomac 41.9 34.7

MIDetroit Water and SewerageDepartment

Detroit 33.1 17.8

MI Grand Rapids Grand Rapids 37.6 26.0

MI Lansing Board of Water and Light Lansing 4.6 3.0

MNCity of Minneaplis WaterDepartment

Minneapolis 32.1 26.3

MNSaint Paul Regional WaterServices

Saint Paul 44.6 27.1

MO City of St Louis Water Division St Louis 19.5 17.2

MO City Utilities 6SULQJHOG 17.8 15.2



MOKansas City Water ServicesDepartment

Kansas City 8.4 17.1

MOMissouri American Water-StLouis/St Charles County

St Louis 31.1 20.1

MT City of Billings Billings 39.5 35.5

NC Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Wilmington 61.0 13.1

NC City of Asheville Asheville 27.4 22.6

NC City of Durham Durham 44.6 28.0

NCCity of Greensboro Departmentof Water Resources

Greensboro 60.3 46.1

NCCity of Raleigh Public UtilitiesDepartment

Raleigh 33.7 15.2

NCOnslow Water and SewerAuthority

Jacksonville 53.0 19.0

NCWinston-Salem/Forsyth CountyUtility Commission

Clemmons 46.1 32.4

NE Metropolitan Utilities District Omaha 50.0 22.3

NJ American Water Company-Coastal North Shrewsbury 63.5 51.3

NJAmerican Water Company-OceanCity

Ocean City 19.0 6.0

NJAmerican Water Company-ShortHills

Short Hills 3.0 1.0

NJ Middlesex Water Company Woodbridge Township 45.0 28.6

NJNew Jersey American Water-Delaware

Palmyra 37.0 10.0

NJNew Jersey American Water-(OL]DEHWK

(OL]DEHWK 60.0 31.0

NJ New Jersey District Water SupplyCommission-Wanaque North

Wanaque 62.0 24.0

NJ Passaic Valley Water Commission Totowa Borough 27.0 44.0

NJ United Water Bergen County Bergen County 32.3 13.7

NMAlbuquerque Bernalillo CountyWater Utility Authority

Albuquerque 19.0 7.0

NV City of Henderson Henderson 61.0 21.0

NVCity of North Las Vegas UtilitiesDepartment

North Las Vegas 56.0 24.0

NV Las Vegas Valley Water District Las Vegas 62.0 27.0

NV Truckee Meadows WaterAuthority

Reno, Sparks and Washoe County 30.9 30.4

NY %XDOR:DWHU$XWKRULW\ 3RUWLRQVRIWKH&LW\RI%XDOR 29.9 16.0

NYCity of Syracuse WaterDepartment

Syracuse 46.0 22.0

NY Erie County Water Authority 3RUWLRQVRIWKH&LW\RI%XDOR 39.0 17.0

NY Mohawk Valley Water Authority Utica 52.0 26.0

NY Monroe County Water Authority Greece 39.0 19.0


18/22


NYNew York City Department ofEnvironmental Protection

New York 57.0 51.0

NYOnondaga County WaterAuthority (OCWA)

Syracuse 64.6 37.9

NY Rochester City Rochester 46.0 32.0

NY 6XRON&RXQW\:DWHU$XWKRULW\ 3RUWLRQVRI6XRON&RXQW\ 7.4 0.9

NY United Water New York Clarkstown 23.9 13.9

NY Yonkers City Yonkers 40.0 47.1OH Akron Public Utilities Bureau Akron 55.3 48.4

OHCity of Columbus Department ofPublic Utilities

Columbus 54.4 37.1

OH City of Toledo Division of Water Toledo 48.2 16.2

OH Cleveland Division of Water Cleveland 33.7 24.1

OH Greater Cincinnati Water Works Cincinnati 46.6 11.8

OK City of Tulsa Water Supply System Tulsa 52.0 16.0

OR Eugene Water and Electric Board Eugene 22.6 23.2

OR Portland Water Bureau Portland 22.0 26.0

PA Allentown City Bureau of Water Allentown 29.0 14.4

PAAqua Pennsylvania Inc MainDivision

Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware,Philadelphia, and Chester counties

33.0 24.0

PA City of Bethlehem Bethlehem 34.7 31.7

PAPennsylvania American WaterCompany-Lake Scranton

Area of Scranton 34.0 18.0

PAPennsylvania American WaterCompany-Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh 60.1 14.9

PA Philadelphia Water Department Philadelphia 42.0 24.0

PA

Pittsburgh Water and Sewer

Authority Pittsburgh City 66.0 17.0

PA West View Water Authority West View Borough 48.0 16.4

RI Providence Water Providence 75.8 20.9

SC Charleston Water System Charleston 26.5 23.3

SC City of Columbia Columbia 29.0 24.0

SC Greenville Water System Greenville 14.0 11.9

SD Sioux Falls Sioux Falls 34.7 10.7

TN Clarksville Water Department Clarksville 42.0 30.0

TN Knoxville Utilities Board Knoxville 64.0 29.0

TN Nashville Water Department #1 Nashville 38.4 31.9

TX Arlington Water Utilities Arlington 13.9 5.8

TX Austin Water Utility Austin 34.6 13.7

TX City of Carrollton Carrollton 13.5 13.0

TX City of Garland Garland 36.2 16.5

TX City of Houston Public Works Houston 17.0 9.0

TX City of Irving Irving 12.5 16.7

TXCity of Plano Utilities OperationDepartment

Plano 36.5 16.2



TX Corpus Christi Water Department Corpus Christi 58.4 18.7

TX Dallas Water Utilities Dallas 10.8 12.0

TXEl Paso Public Utilities BoardWater Service

El Paso 29.3 5.6

TX Lubbock Public Water System Lubbock 15.0 4.1

UTWeber Basin Water ConservancyDistrict

Davis and Weber counties 27.6 25.2

VA Arlington County Arlington 49.0 35.0

VA&KHVWHUHOG&RXQW\&HQWUDOWater System

&KHVWHUHOG 26.8 18.1

VA City of Richmond Richmond 24.0 27.0

VACity of Virginia Beach WaterDepartment

Virginia Beach 43.0 27.0

VA Fairfax County Water AuthorityFairfax, Alexandria, Prince William,and Loudoun counties

27.0 15.0

VA Henrico County Public Utilities Henrico County 25.0 30.0

VA Newport News Water Works Newport News 19.0 17.0

VA Norfolk Department of Utilities Norfolk 47.0 32.0VA Western Virginia Water Authority Roanoke 32.0 31.0

WA City of Tacoma Water Division Tacoma 29.7 38.7

WA Seattle Public Utilities Seattle 38.0 27.0

WI Madison Water Utility Madison 4.3 0.4

WI Milwaukee Water Works Milwaukee 10.0 2.4

WVWest Virginia American Water-ElkRiver Regional System

Kanawha, Boone, Putnam, Lincoln,Logan and Cabell counties

49.0 21.0


20/22


REFERENCES1. Barlow J. 2004. Byproduct of water-disinfection

process found to be highly toxic. University of Illinois

News Bureau. Available: http://www.news.illinois.edu/

news/04/0914water.html [accessed November 2012]

2. %RYH)6KLP



waters [accessed December 2012]

22. EWG. 2007. Chlorine Pollutants at High Levels

LQ'&7DSZDWHU1HZWHVWVQGKLJKOHYHOVRI

KD]DUGRXVFKORULQDWLRQE\SURGXFWVLQ'&WDSZDWHU

Environmental Working Group. Available: http://www.

ewg.org/reports/dctapwater [accessed November

2012]

23. Hinckley AF, Bachand AM, Reif JS. 2005. Late pregnancy

exposures to disinfection by-products and growth-related birth outcomes. Environmental health

Perspectives 113(12): 1808-13.

24. +RPDQ&60HQGROD36DYLW]'$+HUULQJ$+/RRPLV

D, Hartmann KE, Singer PC, Weinberg HS, Olshan AF.

2008. Drinking water disinfection by-product exposure

and fetal growth. Epidemiology 19(5): 729-37.

25. Hwang BF, Jaakkola JJ. 2012. Risk of stillbirth in

the relation to water disinfection by-products: a

population-based case-control study in Taiwan. PLoS

One. 7(3):e33949.

26. Levallois P, Gingras S, Marcoux S, Legay C, Catto C,

5RGULJXH]07DUGLI50DWHUQDOH[SRVXUHWR

drinking-water chlorination by-products and small-for-

gestational-age neonates. Epidemiology. 23(2): 267-76.

27. Linder RE, Klinefelter GR, Strader LF, Narotsky MG,

6XDUH]-'5REHUWV1/HWDO'LEURPRDFHWLFDFLG

DHFWVUHSURGXFWLYHFRPSHWHQFHDQGVSHUPTXDOLW\LQ

the male rat. Fundam Appl Toxicol 28(1): 9-17.

28. NHDES. 2006. Trihalomethanes: Health Information

Summary. New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services. Available: www.des.nh.gov

[accessed January 2013]

29. NTP 2011. Report on Carcinogens. National Toxicology

Program, National Institutes of Health. Available:

KWWSQWSQLHKVQLKJRY"REMHFWLG&$)(%)

FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15 [accessed November 2012]

30. NTP. 2007. NTP Report on the Toxicology Studies

of Bromodichloromethane (CAS NO. 75-27-4) in

*HQHWLFDOO\0RGLHG)9%7J$&+HPL]\JRXV0LFH

(Dermal, Drinking Water, and Gavage Studies) and

Carcinogenicity Studies of Bromodichloromethane

LQ*HQHWLFDOO\0RGLHG>%7USWP%UG1

+DSORLQVXFLHQW@0LFH'ULQNLQJ:DWHUDQG*DYDJHStudies). 07-4422: National Institutes of Health. ODHS.

2004. Haloacetic Acids. Technical Bulletin.: Oregon

Department of Human Services; Environmental

Toxicology Section.

31. ODHS. 2004. Haloacetic Acids. Technical Bulletin.:

Oregon Department of Human Services; Environmental

Toxicology Section.

32. OEHHA. 2010. Draft Public Health Goal for

7ULKDORPHWKDQHVLQ'ULQNLQJ:DWHU&DOLIRUQLD2FHRI

(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQW$YDLODEOH

oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/THMPHG090910.pdf

[accessed November 2012]

33. OEHHA. 2004. Evidence on the Developmental and

UHSURGXFWLYH7R[LFLW\RI&KORURIRUP&DOLIRUQLD2FHR

(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK+D]DUG$VVHVVPHQW

34. $YDLODEOHKWWSZZZRHKKDFDJRYSURSKD]DUGB

LGHQWSGIB]LS&KORURIRUP+'SGI>DFFHVVHG1RYHPEHU2012]

35. Porter CK, Putnam SD, Hunting KL, Riddle MR. 2005.

7KHHHFWRIWULKDORPHWKDQHDQGKDORDFHWLFDFLG

exposure on fetal growth in a Maryland county.

American Journal of Epidemiology 162(4): 334-44.

36. PWD. 2009. Green City, Clean Waters: The City of

3KLODGHOSKLDV3URJUDPIRU&RPELQHG6HZHU2YHURZ

ControlA Long Term Control Plan Update. Summary

Report. Philadelphia Water Department. Available:

http://www.phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/LTCPU_

Summary_LoRes.pdf [accessed December 2012]

37. Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, Richardson SD, Thruston AD, Jr.,

Woo YT, McKague AB. 2004. Chemical and biological

FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQRIQHZO\GLVFRYHUHGLRGRDFLGGULQNLQJ

water disinfection byproducts. Environmental Science

and Technology 38(18): 4713-22.

38. Rusin PA, Rose JB, Haas CN, Gerba CP. 1997. Risk

assessment of opportunistic bacterial pathogens

in drinking water. Reviews of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 152: 57-83.

39. Summerhayes RJ, Morgan GG, Edwards HP, Lincoln

D, Earnest A, Rahman B, Beard JR. 2012. Exposure

to trihalomethanes in drinking water and small-for-

gestational-age births. Epidemiology 23(1):15-22.

40. Toledano MB, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Best N, Whitaker H,

Hambly P, de Hoogh C, Fawell J, Jarup L, Elliott P. 2005.

Relation of trihalomethane concentrations in public

water supplies to stillbirth and birth weight in three

water regions in England. Environ Health Perspect.

113(2):225-32.

41. USDA. 2001. National Resources Inventory 2001:

Annual NRI. United States Department of Agriculture.

42. USGS. 1999. The quality of our Nations Waters-

Nutrients and Pesticides: US Geological Survey Circular

1225. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1225/pdf/

index.html

43. Villanueva C, Cantor K, Grimalt J, Malats N, Silverman

D, Tardon A, et al. 2007. Bladder cancer and exposure

to water disinfection by-products through ingestion,

bathing, showering, and swimming in pools. American

Journal of Epidemiology 165(2): 148-56.


22/22

44. :ULJKW-0b6FKZDUW]-b'RFNHU\':b(HFW

RIbWULKDORPHWKDQHbH[SRVXUHRQIHWDO

GHYHORSPHQWb2FFXS(QYLURQ0HGb

45. Xu X, Weisel CP. 2003. Inhalation exposure to

haloacetic acids and haloketones during showering.

Environmental Science and Technology 37(3): 569-76.

46.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	laneymasters
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

2013 Tap Water Report Final

Documents